I also note that none of them have any publications listed, which is kind of a big danger sign.
On another note, did you take a look at the descriptions of the programs of study? They’re completely laughable.
Those with specific statements against life without intelligent design:
Ernst Boris Chain ,Nobel Prize in medicine
Arthur Compton, discoverer the Compton Effect
Werner Arber, Nobel for Medicine in 1978
Sir Fred Hoyle, founder of the Cambridge Institute of Theoretical Astronomy and the originator of the Steady State theory of the origin of the universe
Others hinted at the inadequacy of evolution or the difficulty in believing it.
I am sure you could print a list of scientists a mile long with beliefs to the contrary, but I am not debating which camp has more adherents. I was countering the haughty statement that if you don’t believe in evolution then you are “incompetent.”
So are you saying they don’t adhere to the principles of evolutionary theory? Or that they believe that life was created with an intelligent design? Evolution and the creation of life are two totally different things.
I thought you had responded to quelquechose’s statement :
…with your list of scientists. But I see no evidence in your post that any of thse guys have a problem with evolution theory.
I ask again: Can you show where any of the people you listed above has specifically indicated–or even hinted-- that evolutionary theory is pure bunk?
I Love Me
“Evolution and the creation of life are two totally different things.”
You have to remember what started this discussion. The start of the discussion was the statement that faculty at BJU do not believe in “evolution.” The kind of “evolution” that those at BJU do not believe (and that is being discussed) says that “God did not create life, life evolved from amino acids, etc … and through natural selection has brought us to the vast gamut of species we have today.”
Yes, there is microevolution and macroevolution and all that, but that is picking nicks to just complicate the discussion. The discussion is not about "evolution.” The core of my point was that those people at BJU are not incompetent just because they believe God created life (which is what I had taken from quelquechose posts).
I Love Me
“I ask again: Can you show where any of the people you listed above has specifically indicated–or even hinted-- that evolutionary theory is pure bunk?”
Sir Fred Hoyle speaking of evolution: “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.’”
I think this is pretty obvious. He does not believe that higher life forms can come about by pure chance. The tornado analogy means he thinks its absurd.
Werner Arber : “How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem."
*He is saying that evolution by itself is not enough to make these complex structures come about. He believes that a God must have put them together. There is no “God conveniently putting things together” in evolutionary theory. *
Chain said: “The probability for such an event as the origin of DNA molecules to have occurred by sheer chance is just too small to be seriously considered … ."
*He is saying that evolution (random chance and natural selection) by itself is not enough to make these structures come about. He believes that a God must have put them together. There is no “God conveniently putting things together” in evolutionary theory. *
This seems easy to me. Do you not see this?
Anyway, it seems that I (and others) have somewhat hijacked this thread. Sorry about that quelquechose.
To me, just because someone does not believe in evolutionary theory/the big bang/the heliocentric model/the round earth/Wal-Mart’s business model/the Atkins diet, does not mean they are incompetent or stupid.
If you disagree with my posts, read them again. If you still disagree, then you probably always will and there is nothing I can say to make that different. We all think different things… and that is ok.
Sorry if I have turned a simple thread into a debate.
" ‘I’m a graduate of Bob Jones University. I majored in Ex-Gay Studies and I wrote my thesis on the satanism in the Harry Potter books.’ " - Kate Clinton
[hijack] Anyone else annoyed by the phrase “believe in [scientific theory]”? It isn’t a belief system. You can accept it or not accept it, but “believe in” is for stuff that’s faith (as in religion, not the modern “faith=have trust in” definition)-based.
[/hijack]
Anyone who’s saying that someone can’t be both devoutly religious and a good scientist is flat out wrong. I’m sure we can all think of examples of scientists who were devoted to their religion. (Isaac Newton, for example.) That said, I don’t think anyone here was really saying that.
What I would say is that anyone who would flat out reject a scientific theory based on their religious beliefs is probably going to be pretty handicapped when it comes to doing science. There are plenty of scientists out there, biologists included, who think the theory of evolution is flawed or that it doesn’t tell the whole story (although I have yet to meet any respected scientist who denied that natural selection at least played some role in the origin of species). Every theory, even widely accepted theories, have their detractors within the scientific community. However, if someone is going to say “The theory of evolution can’t possibly be right, because look what it says here in the Bible,” then I’d have to say they could hardly be called a serious scientist. But I’ve met plenty of religious scientists, and none of them have done anything like that.
Regarding those who would teach that unverified Biblical claims are matters of scientific fact, I’d say they’re mischaracterizing science and faith, to the detriment of both.
I second that sentiment. Science doesn’t require belief in much of anything beyond the idea that observations can tell us meaningful information about the universe. It certainly doesn’t demand that one believe any particular theory. On the contrary, skepticism is perhaps the most important trait in a scientist. So certainly there’s nothing wrong with someone doubting a scientific theory. But those who would reject a theory based on purely religious reasons can’t be said to be doing science. That doesn’t make them bad people, it just makes them non-scientists. But there are plenty of religious people, in the sciences and all walks of life, who are perfectly willing to consider scientific theories such as evolution with an open mind.
Do they really call it BJU?
There is not necessarily a conflict between believing in God and being a good scientist. I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the Catholic Church’s view on evolution, interpreted and summarized below:
Link. FWIW, I saw nothing in quelquechose’s comments that would question the integrity of a biologist who held such a view. But this position strikes me as very different from the orientation of BJU, which quite apparently curtails the scientific method when it comes in conflict with the articles of faith that the univeristy teaches.
But as someone who has studied history, I laugh at the basis of their history courses: “History of Civilization: In this class you will learn the complete history of civilization as “His Story,” that is, the story of God’s providential workings through nations and men.” Uh, yeah.
Getting away from everyone’s hatred of Bob Jones U. (why did they not at least name it Robert Jones University??) and onto the actual topic…
Truth be told, I don’t think a lot of people give a flying crap about “accreditation.” The distinction between an accredited university and a nonaccredited one is a distinction a lot of people probably aren’t even aware of. I never asked my university’s accreditation papers. And truth is, there’s more of a difference in quality between some accredited universities (e.g. Harvard vs. Grunt State, or MIT vs. The University of South Dick All) than there would be between some accredited and nonaccredited institutions. Hell, I’ve never even had an employer ask me to prove I actually have the degree I say I do.
The value of a university’s degrees are proportional to the university’s good will and reputation. If Harvard were to say tomorrow, “The hell with it. We’re not paying for the admin to keep up accreditation,” would their degrees be useless? Of course not; a Harvard degree would still be your lifetime meal ticket because everyone knows it’s a Harvard education. Accreditation merely serves the purpose of ensuring (especially in the USA, a country with a jillion colleges) that you can’t have your uncle set up a university in your basement called the University of Eastern Texas or Southern Ontario College and foist off your Ph.D. as a real degree.
Bob Jones, among a fairly large number of people, has a reputation and goodwill, so its degrees have value. Heck, even among people who DON’T subscribe to their belief system, at least we know it’s a real school and not your uncle’s basement.
How many people really have any idea whether Bob Jones University is accredited or not? I’ve been doing HR work in various capacities for years and have never thought to check if someone’s university was accredited.
Hunter Hawk writes:
> On another note, did you take a look at the descriptions of the programs of
> study? They’re completely laughable.
I looked at the mathematics course page. I know more about math than other subjects, and it’s likely to be less affected by their agenda than other fields. Here it is:
http://www.bju.edu/academics/cas/undergrad/divms/math.html
This is certainly very weak. First, note that they assume that they will have to teach many students trigonometry. At my crummy high school when I graduated thirty-five years ago (where the students were basically the mediocre, rural sorts that Bob Jones expects to get in its freshman), all college prep students took trigonometry their senior year. If many of its students aren’t even on that level, they must be pretty poor students.
There are no analysis courses, no topology, no complex analysis, no combinatorics, and no course-length number theory or set theory. The course labeled “Abstract Algebra” has to include some number theory and set theory, since they aren’t taught in separate courses. Again, this is at the level of the average junior college. If I were the person deciding whether to admit even a 4.0 graduate of this program to a master’s degree program at the local second-rate state university, I would have to tell the person, “Look, enroll as a special undergraduate for the year-long undergraduate courses in analysis and abstract algebra. If you do well in them, we’ll admit you as a master’s degree student.”
Well, Ian Paisley - “Doctor” Paisley - certainly did well out of BJU. He founded his own church and his own political party - both very successful - and has made a fortune preaching bigotry, hatred and homophobia [plus, of course, his salaries for the NI Assembly, Westminster, and the European parliament]. His political party [heaven help us!] is now the largest in NI - in the distant past my late husband used to joke that he wouldn’t leave NI unless Paisley got into power - and now it’s happened 
I must admit I never heard of BJU until Paisley hit the political scene - but he isn’t a good advert for the place.
Btw, it’s worth noting that Bob Jones University ended its rule against interracial dating a few years back. The rule came about originally when an Oriental parent of a student objected to his child dating whites. The school also has had mixed-race married couples as students for years. There was an article about it on www.beliefnet.com a few years ago.
Their math program may indeed be weak, but it’s certainly not true that all college prep high school students take trig. At least, it wasn’t for me; I managed to get into UC San Diego without having taken trig.
Yeah, but you have to get a letter of permission from your parents.
I got into numerous very-decent universities without ever taking a math class beyond first-year geometry in the 10th grade. Actually, I flunked it in the 10th grade and had to repeat in the 11th. No other math classes after that. I graduated high school in 1982, for reference, from a middle-class not-poor pretty decent public high school in a mid-sized town in CT.
There was a chapter in Al Franken’s Lying Liars etc. where he whimsically tried to enroll his son into BJU or some comparable institution. They recognised him and gently escorted him off-campus. A few telling points were made:
–They wear their lack of accreditation as a badge of pride, like acupuncturists or holistic herbalists do, and for a lot of the same reasons
–They have the courage of their convictions, wacky as they may seem to us heathen folk
–Before Franken was recognised, he (fraudulently) promised big bucks to the institution if they could smoothe over some admissions obstacles for his kid. It didn’t make a bit of difference
–Every time he tried to expose their creepy hypocricy, they wound up looking better and he wound up looking worse. It was the most painfully honest chapter in the book, IIRC
Every religious institution has rules that the nonbelievers would find absurd. We Catholics are in weird denial about homosexuality; institutions like Georgetown are conflicted over whether to acknowledge gay student organizations, falling back on Church policy sometimes and local law others. And while the (now obsolete) ban on interracial dating seems charmingly neolithic, I’d be curious about what policies an Orthodox Jewish college would have on the same subject. Intolerance isn’t unique to Christians or fundamentalists.
We sophisticated hipsters on the two coasts are frighteningly out of touch with the values of a huge portion of the folks between the coasts. We think we won the culture war sometime in the early 70s; they think it’s just beginning in earnest.